Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

To circle back to the OP since there seems to be more interest in opinions of influencers and journalists than in science, isn’t it interesting that a YouTuber is complaining about the beliefs of people who watch his content and comment on it? At some point, do these content creators take any personal responsibility for the beliefs of those they are working to influence? I suppose it’s easier to blame others than to examine your own work to see if it may be contributing to the “problem” you perceive in your audience.

I also found it interesting this guy still advocates for personal choices in consumerism to benefit the environment. I see climate advocates of the extreme variety on PF saying it doesn’t matter what you do personally, it only matters what you give politicians power to do. Is this guy behind the times with such quaint notions or what? Just an interesting observation.

 

It matters what significant numbers of people and corporations do. And, it matters what the government does.

Unfortunately, people and corporations don't particularly do the right thing. We had to have regulation and enforcement to cause rivers to not light on fire. We have to have water testing to ensure that places like Flint don't have their children's brains permanently fried by years of mercury - since that was cheaper. We've known about climate change for a long time, yet people are screaming that we don't pump more fossil fuel (especially oil companies, of course), and many still don't know about solar and wind and thus don't notice that it is the cheapest new energy and that Iowa is more than 50% wind powered, proving it works.

We can make the decisions of individuals easier in some ways. For a few examples, we can make it possible for people to put their excess solar power back on the grid and get paid. We can make sure finding a car charger isn't a big deal. We can improve our grid architecture to make it easier to put wind energy projects on the grid (rather than to have long backups for such additions), we can improve the grid to make it more efficient to ship electricity across the country - like China has. We can make better choices in power generation - which is a government choice.

These are important enablers - making it more possible for people to do the right thing.

 

Your post implied that Climate Scientists don't utilize the Scientific method, which seems like unsupported analysis to me.

 

I’m thankful you still believe individuals can make a difference.

I’m thankful I don’t need a government to tell me what the “right things” are or their “help” to do them.

 

What post? Quote it. I’ve never posted anything of the kind.


Are you back to thinking Goldman Sachs and John Kerry are climate scientists?

Why on earth would I post dozens of published peer reviewed papers and analysis from the IPCC in my posts, tell you I only care about such evidence, and then claim the folks who produced that evidence don’t adhere to the scientific method?

SMH.

 

How can people read my posts and come up with the idea I don’t think scientists use the scientific method?

Perhaps people aren’t reading my posts before responding with fallacy….

 

After that one - post #44 in thread. I can't answer your question. I don't know what's going on inside your head.

 

If you can’t understand a post you can ask for clarification.

If you would read my posts it’s very clear “what’s going on inside my head”. Look at post #56 to catch up on what you have apparently been missing.

News flash. Scientists don’t publish opinions in the results and conclusions sections of the dozens of studies I’ve presented to you. That should be a clue….

 

You will note that as an individual, you have little to no control over several of those issues.

 

Which ones?

 

Those who cannot master the substance should keep silent to avoid embarrassment.

 

Sloppy work makes a mockery of "denier" claims.

 

Great post. I saw your 50% number for Iowa being powered by wind. I had been quoting 45% which was the latest number I had heard. Guess what - it's up to 60%!

https://www.iaenvironment.org/webre...er in wind energy,,by wind of any state – 60%.

IOWA IS A WIND ENERGY LEADER Iowa is a national leader in wind energy, producing the highest percentage of electricity by wind of any Iowa’s total wind capacity is 11,660 MW and growing. Iowa currently ranks second nationally in installed capacity. [3] Wind projects under construction or in active development will bring Iowa over 12,000 MW in the next few years. [4] Iowa’s older wind turbines are being repowered to extend their operating life and generate more energy. Iowa has over 2,500 MW of wind capacity that was recently repowered or is in the process of being repowered. [5]

 

Thanks for the update!

There are those on this board who claim engineering expertise who state that they know progress like in Iowa is totally impossible!!

 

Since Iowa sells approximately 25% of its generation out of state, it could be argued the percentage of “Iowa being powered by wind” is even higher. Much of the power sold is excess generation of coal origin.


https://www.iaenvironment.org/webres/File/4_web_IEC_July2021_Condition-of-the-state_FINAL.pdf

Wind power is a decent option. Unfortunately, we are quickly approaching the point where willing lessors can be had. The percentage of proposed projects that are seriously contested and rejected by potential lessors is rapidly increasing. Not sure what the answer to that is….

 

I haven't heard of the problems with loans.

I understand that wind projects are having to wait in line to get connected to the grid due to the design of the grid.

Does the problem have to do with lessors not confident concerning repayment will begin?

Do you have a cite on this problem?

 

I haven’t heard of any problems with loans either. That’s why I didn’t post anything about loans! I expect interest rates are hurting projects though.

Of course I have citations. It’s getting more difficult to find lessors because prime locations with willing lessors have already been developed. More and more areas are banning development by law.

https://www.instituteforenergyresea...olar-project-installations-have-slowed/?amp=1

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-e...wn-wind-energy-will-it-harm-states-green-plan

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/02...a-big-backlash-to-new-renewables-is-mounting/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ies-ban-renewable-energy-plants/71841063007/#

Hope that helps. It’s sad this is new information to you. If we are to really solve our environmental problems we have to have comprehensive knowledge of what we are up against. Glad to be of service.

 

This one is a fossil fuel screed - even suggesting that wind generation causes autism.

The rest of these point to the issues I mentioned.

Plus, they add the issue of politics.

 

Strawman fallacy from you noted. I’ve included sources from various viewpoints all saying the same thing—more counties have banned wind projects than have approved projects. It’s just a fact supported by verifiable evidence even reported in USA Today.


I intentionally used sources from the entire spectrum. One leaning anti wind, one nonpartisan unbiased, and lastly one main stream pro wind media source USA Today.

Here is info on the nonpartisan source.

https://www.bridgemi.com/about

My posts are not only based on verifiable facts, they are intentionally structured to combat fallacious arguments you and your compatriots that dislike and reject information that conflicts with your preconceived biases and unsubstantiated opinions. In this case my post was intentionally structured to contain verifiable facts from three different ideological sources. One “right” one “center nonpartisan” and one “left”.

Now you reject (as is common) verifiable information that conflicts with your bias and opinion. You’ve demonstrated you reject evidence based on your bias and not based on the veracity of evidence.

Thanks for the predictable response to my intentional demonstration of how climate science deniers react to information that conflicts with their bias and unsubstantiated opinions. Thanks for again helping me dismantle the bankrupt premises climate science deniers cling to in the face of evidence.

Oh, while the fallacy was predictable and expected, I did not expect folks not to know what a lessor is in the context of wind power projects. An added bonus!

 

Regarding the large-scale solar and wind projects, and their rejection by local communities --- this is definitely a concern in many areas. It's getting harder and harder to find areas where there aren't residential developments nearby. Many Americans want acreage, so these developments sprout up in rural areas. Not only do they complain about infrastructure in the area, but many have very restrictive HOAs. Some HOAs have covenants restricting residential solar and residential wind. My state of Colorado actually addressed this issue years ago when they passed legislation to prohibit HOAs from banning clotheslines, solar PV systems and residential wind turbines.

Farmers are now starting to fight rural residential developments, because they start getting complaints about odors, etc. However, it's a catch-22, because many of the farmers sell-out to developers.

 

Indeed. Opposition is growing. In our area they are routinely described as "eyesores" in letters to the local newspaper.
Report Finds 228 Local Restrictions Against Siting Wind ...

Columbia University
https://blogs.law.columbia.edu › 2023/05/31 › report-fin...

May 31, 2023 — The report's state-by-state catalog describes local and state restrictions against the siting of renewable energy projects (primarily wind and ...

 

Yes, visual, light and noise pollution are real things. And not everyone wants to deal with them.

Some people chose their residence based on their desire to live in nature away from these pollutants.

 

Even your cite from fossil fuel advocates showed a more honest appraisal of the challenges wind and solar face in the USA - at least if you ignore their preposterous statements about autism, etc.

One can't just discount the technical and governmental issues while polling whether people like windmills.

Plus, investments and progress need to be measured. Handwaves about how some hate windmills isn't analysis of clean energy progress.

You need to add cites that honestly present clean energy growth today and what factors slowed investment over the last couple years.

 

LOL. I simply pointed out twice as many counties are BANNING wind development as there are counties that have approved projects.

Your opinions of the sources reporting that information are irrelevant.

You may prefer a pie in the sky attitude, but that’s not reality. My sources show even professionals in the business and full time advocates for the technology take the position I presented.

You can tell me what to post, but it will do you no good. I’ll continue to post important information like the fact siting of projects is becoming more difficult. That’s just a fact whether you like hearing it or not.

One cite I presented is third party verified to be fair and non biased. Another is mainstream media on board completely with the popular climate change narrative. You reject their data reporting because 33.333% of the sources I used are not ideologically aligned with YOUR bias.

Thanks for again demonstrating bias and opinions are more important to you than verifiable evidence.

 

That is a ridiculous measure.

I'm asking for real analysis, not pure political speculation based on counting counties.

And, remember that I gave more credit to the fossil fuel industry site that you posted.

If a "fair and unbiased" site has nothing to say, who cares?